 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The End of Science in Texas...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 27 Jul 07 - 04:40 PM A correspondent sends this link concerning recent developments in Texan-style education: "Via the DefCon blog comes that news that Texas governor Rick Perry has appointed a creationist to head the Texas State Board of Education. I'll give you a moment to clean off your screen. Yes, you read that right. At first I thought, "No, not even a politician in Texas could possibly do something that dumb, that contrary to reality, that horrifying to their kids. DefCon Blog must have gotten it wrong!" And then I did a few searches. DefCon Blog got it right. According to the Dallas Morning News: Texas Freedom Network president Kathy Miller … noted that in 2003, Dr. McLeroy was one of four board members who voted against proposed high school biology textbooks because he felt their coverage of evolution was "too dogmatic" and did not include possible flaws in Charles Darwin's theory of how life on Earth evolved from lower forms. That is straight out of the creationist tactics notebook. In case you're not sure, the article goes on to quote McLeroy: "It is wrong to teach opinion as fact," he said. Pssst! Someone needs to tell him it's also unconstitutional to teach religion as science. Here is an Op-Ed talking about McLeroy's appointment as Board chair: In 2001, McLeroy and a majority of the board rejected the only Advanced Placement textbook for high school environmental science because its views on global warming and other events didn't comport with the beliefs of the board majority. The book wasn't factual and was anti-American and anti-Christian, the majority claimed. Meanwhile, dozens of colleges and universities were using the textbook, including Baylor University, the nation's largest Baptist college. In 2003, McLeroy voted against approving biology textbooks that included a full-scale scientific account of evolutionary theory. Here is a letter McLeroy sent out to his fellow State Board of Education members: My Personal Confession Given all the time in the world, I don't think I could make a spider out of a rock. However, most of the books we are considering adopting, claim that Nothing made a spider out of a rock. I don't think I share a common ancestor with a tree. However, most of the books we are considering adopting, claim as a fact that we all share a common ancestor with a tree. Brilliant! This guy doesn't understand the most basic principles of biology, and he's going to chair the State Board of Education. And hey, if he doesn't understand something, why should it be taught at all? Here is Don McLeroy's own website, from the Favorite Quotations section: The belief seems to be spreading that intellectuals are no wiser as mentors, or worthier as exemplars, than the witch doctors or priests of old. I share that scepticism. Think that one through for a moment, folks. The new head of the Texas State Board of Education is an anti-intellectual. Note: he didn't say this himself, he is quoting someone else; but it's clearly a quotation he agrees with. You can rail all you want and complain that I write too much about anti-science in the form of religious fundamentalism, but you would be wrong. I can't write about this enough. It's a disease, a virus, and now the brains of millions of schoolchildren in Texas are at risk. Worse, Texas (along with California) has an unusually large influence on what textbooks get used in the rest of the country, because they are such a large market for the publishers. If this antiscience, anti-intellectual, anti-reality man gets to help choose what textbooks go in Texas, then you parents out there who are reading this in New Hampshire, in Wyoming, in Oregon, in Virginia — your own kids are at risk here too...." See the graphic image at Bad Astronomy's webste. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: alanabit Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:06 PM What next? Paris Hilton as Transport Minister? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bill D Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:14 PM What's so tricky about making a spider out of a rock? They made a leader of a state office out of a dummy with sponge for brains. I was offered a job in Dallas once...I turned it down. I lived in Kansas at the time. I guess they can't make it against the law to be ignorant of basic logic and reason, but there should be SOME way to prevent them from being in charge of stuff that influences all of society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Shakey Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:22 PM Amos, he has a point, I mean what's evolution ever done for him? We need more anti-anti-science Dennet Hitchens Dawkins Harris Grayling |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bonzo3legs Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:29 PM But one thing's for sure - Perry pulls his pecker with either his left or his right hand!!!.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:33 PM He does have a good point. Of course, his hat covers it well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Cluin Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:48 PM Things is gettin' stupider an' stupider... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Wesley S Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:51 PM Thanks for the info. I'll be spreading it around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Donuel Date: 27 Jul 07 - 06:05 PM So what if he is a Cretinist? Cretins are people too. In the new Creationist museum in Tennesee (built as a tax dodge and money laundry by the Mega Evangelical Christ Church Association -MECCA) there is a big dinosaur in the lobby with a handsome Adam riding on its back which proves that Dinosaurs and Man share the same 6,000 years since Creation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Jul 07 - 06:08 PM Well, shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jul 07 - 06:14 PM The ignorant are everwhere. As a student teaching in first year science labs at the University of Illinois many years ago, I was forced to deal with students belonging to something called the Newman Club, whose members were Roman Catholic creationists. 'Faith-based beliefs' are a problem everywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 27 Jul 07 - 06:37 PM I do, however, want to apologize to my good, smart, kind and able friends throughout Texas, of which I have at last count four, including Jed Marum, whom I did not consult but counted anyway. Although I chose a slanderous exaggeration as the title for this thread, it was merely as a rhetorical device, intended to stir up unthinking emotions of disgust -- antipathy on a completely stimulus-response basis. But not against Texas, merely against those few mentioned in the article. I hope I can be forgiven for anyone I may have sprayed while painting with too broad a brush. Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bill D Date: 27 Jul 07 - 06:37 PM Stupidity may be often genetic or a matter of a birth injury...etc.. Ignorance is a personal or cultural avoidance of fact and logic. It's too bad ignorance doesn't itch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jul 07 - 08:57 PM It was Texas and Indiana that wanted to legislate the value of pi to 3.00000000000000000... instead of that nasty 3.1415965.... In Indiana it never made it out of committee because a math prof from Purdue demonstrated the stupidity of the idea. It was voted on in the Texas legislature.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bobert Date: 27 Jul 07 - 09:06 PM Fact is stranger than fiction... Exhibit A thru Z: Texas... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: fumblefingers Date: 27 Jul 07 - 09:32 PM Rapaire:It was Texas and Indiana that wanted to legislate the value of pi to 3.00000000000000000... instead of that nasty 3.1415965.... In Indiana it never made it out of committee because a math prof from Purdue demonstrated the stupidity of the idea. It was voted on in the Texas legislature.... Could you please provide documentation of this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 27 Jul 07 - 10:00 PM I get the impression that there are a lot of supporters of good music in Texas - whatever their faults may be! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jul 07 - 10:19 PM The value of pi is an old joke in legislative bodies- it has been used to fill time in filibuster sessions as have other nonsensical proposals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jul 07 - 10:32 PM Here's the Indiana story, straight from Purdue University. (I left a number out, it should have been 3.14159265....). You can look up Texas yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: fumblefingers Date: 27 Jul 07 - 11:18 PM How do you know "it was voted in the Texas legislature"? I don't care about Indiana because I don't live there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Ebbie Date: 27 Jul 07 - 11:19 PM I thought the Creationist Museum is in Kentucky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Jul 07 - 11:37 PM Committee on canals? Committee on Temperance? -------------------------- Texas- no record of any such vote. Mention of 'hopefully apocryphal' story here- http://museum.utep.edu/archive/math/DDeasymath.htm Desert Diary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 28 Jul 07 - 12:01 AM "'I don't think I share a common ancestor with a tree. However, most of the books we are considering adopting, claim as a fact that we all share a common ancestor with a tree.' Brilliant! This guy doesn't understand the most basic principles of biology, and he's going to chair the State Board of Education." I hope the guy who wrote this article and that second paragraph doesn't teach elementary school kids or higher. Anti-Creationists can have insufficient imagination to grasp the full extent of what they think they support. If you told this guy that not only is he related to a tree, but much more closely related to a fungus, he'd probably have a conniption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Jul 07 - 10:07 AM "I guess they can't make it against the law to be ignorant of basic logic and reason, but there should be SOME way to prevent them from being in charge of stuff that influences all of society." No worries. You are watching the beginning of The Decline Nd Fall of The Second Roman Empire (USA). In China they don't tolerate this "Creationist '(Pseudo-)Science'" Crap, which is why they will eventuallyovertake the USA... and own all the USA things of any real value - allowing these idiots to still believe their blind stupidity - their children will be no threat, for they will understand nothing of any use in Real Science or Maths... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Jul 07 - 10:15 AM Once they have control, they will outlaw Religion, the Only Religion is The State... They have done it before... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Jul 07 - 11:01 AM So much for the Space Center in Houston. And now we know the real reason why the SCSC wasn't built. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: artbrooks Date: 28 Jul 07 - 11:23 AM Well, there is a healthy leavening of idiots out there, but let's not accuse Texas of being more idiotic than other places. Wasn't it Kansas that elected a state school board of creationists a few years ago(replaced now, thankfully)? And who was the anti-abortionist who our beloved leader recently appointed to a position with oversight of womens' health issues? Of course, Bushy is a Texan - sorta. As I recall, Texas entered the Union with a proviso that it could split itself into three separate states. Maybe we should encourage them to do that, put Bubba and the rest of the nut cases in one of them (it can be the smallest, you know), and they can go their own way unencumbered by people with some awareness of the world around them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: curmudgeon Date: 28 Jul 07 - 11:40 AM The Wilmot Proviso allows Texas to subdivide into five states. Imagine, if you dare, TEN senators from that new mix. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: robomatic Date: 28 Jul 07 - 01:06 PM Maybe instead of worrying about whether or not the Ten Commandments should be posted in the high courts and legislatures of our land, a depiction of King Canute ordering back the tide would be appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Jul 07 - 01:11 PM Bushy a Texan? He's a would-be Texan. Born in New Haven. New Haven, Texas? Not likely. Try New Haven, Connecticut. The wide open spaces of Connecticut. Silver spoon. Skull and Bones. He just happens to be probably the most successful carpetbagger Texas has ever seen--successful at carpetbagging, at any rate--it seems the vast majority of Texans have bought it. Even more successful than the former holder of the title, Pappy "Pass the Biscuits, Pappy" O'Daniel--from Kansas. Too bad the Dixie Chicks didn't say "We're sorry we said the President of the United States is from Texas. He isn't. He's from Connecticut". Not successful at anything else, except propaganda--which seems to be all you need these days--more's the pity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Jul 07 - 01:21 PM Well, ya see, that there science stuff is hard and ya gotta think and stuff. Learn stuff like "cause 'n' effect" and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and decay rates and know what livers do and oxidation-reduction reactions (whatever they are) and all sorts of hard stuff. And thinkin' just ain't for a lot of folks, and their rights should be represented too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jul 07 - 01:36 PM The whole debate/discussion is sorely in need of some new definitions just for clarification. I thought the Mike Huckabee response during the Republican debates was an interesting one. At the first debate he appeared to have answered that he doesn't believe in evolution. In the second, he was able to clarify -- and I think his clarification defines more American's views than the discussion as seems to be framed here. His response was that he realized in the first debate that what was really being asked was not, "do you believe in evolution?", but rather, "do you believe in God?". As he was not about to answer that he didn't believe in God, he chose to answer the implication of the question. All hell broke loose. He realized that he didn't answer accurately -- perhaps he was overly defensive. And so in the second debate he clarified that he didn't presume to know how creation had occurred, but that he did believe it was God-directed. He also clearly stated that he thus didn't rule out evolution as the manner in which that creation unfolded. Obviously there are those who believe in creation to the exclusion of evolution. But once Huckabee's clarification is given as a third alternative, suddenly those people become much smaller in number and thus, much less vocal. And they wouldn't be vocal in the first place if there weren't a lot of zealots in the schools teaching that science -- and evolution -- disprove the existence of a god. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bev and Jerry Date: 28 Jul 07 - 05:18 PM Actually, Darwin was not the one who first proposed the theory of evolution. Before he came along, scientists in general accepted evolution as an obvious fact based on simple observations. They saw no conflict between evolution and the existence of God. What Darwin contributed to the theory was natural selection and this part left very little left for God to do. From that point on there was a perceived conflict between the theory of evolution and the existence of God which, as John Hardly points out, is not actually necessary. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 28 Jul 07 - 05:28 PM " ... a lot of zealots in the schools teaching that science -- and evolution -- disprove the existence of a god." Do you have reason to believe that this is actually the case, John, or are you giving yourself some rhetorical license here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jul 07 - 05:47 PM do you actually doubt it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jul 07 - 05:58 PM ...asked another way... Do you know any serious agnostic/atheist who doesn't believe that their god-free belief is firmly grounded in science? I don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 28 Jul 07 - 06:06 PM Well - kind of - but I live a long, long way from Texas, so I don't really know what goes on there - that's why I ask. But having spent many years observing the States from the north, I have seen that issues have a way getting very polarized there, and Americans, if I may generalize, do seem to have a tendency toward zealotry. I just find it hard to imagine that many teachers would go out of their way to alienate the parents of their students - as if they didn't have enough problems already ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Naemanson Date: 28 Jul 07 - 06:40 PM A long, long time ago President Johnson declared war on ignorance with a new education bill. I remember a cartoon in the paper from that time with two men with long old fashioned rifles crouching behind a rock. One of them is saying, "Ah'm igorant and Ah'd gonna stay igorant." Guess you can't legislate education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 28 Jul 07 - 06:59 PM YEah, you know what they say...you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her read. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Grab Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:04 PM Robo, it's probably off-topic, but the Canute story is that of a ruler who was sick of brown-nosers. One of his court told him he was so powerful, even the tide would obey him. So he took his court to the seaside and proved it wouldn't. I don't know the fate of the arse-licker, but I doubt it was pleasant! If only some of our leaders had the same level of wisdom... Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: stallion Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:14 PM if this wasn't real it would be hilariously funny, a bit like the part in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail when John Cleese, as a knight,gets his arms and legs cut off and still claims he can fight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Cluin Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:17 PM "Who are you, so wise in the ways of science?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:37 PM John - We cross-posted back there - my last post was in response to your second-last, if you follow me. "...asked another way... Do you know any serious agnostic/atheist who doesn't believe that their god-free belief is firmly grounded in science?" I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether there are "a lot of zealots in the schools teaching that science -- and evolution -- disprove the existence of a god". This is either happening or it isn't. I had about seven different Science teachers in the course of my elementary and secondary schooling, and I'm sure that not one of them ever mentioned how what they taught might relate to the idea of the existence of God, in any class I was in. If Science teachers in your part of the world are proselytizing for atheism, they should be reined in - but that should not mean compelling them to teach religion instead of science. But I wonder how many of your science teachers actually consider themselves atheists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:41 PM I don't recall any of them doing that, but I do recall that to ninety percent or more of them (split almost equally between the US and Canada), a fact was a fact is a fact and will be a fact. They gave you the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:49 PM Well, that's not quite accurate. Many of the facts from the past were wrong because people were stupider then. But now we have the right facts, children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 28 Jul 07 - 09:01 PM Yes, we are certainly lucky to be so much smarter than all our predecessors ... ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 28 Jul 07 - 09:17 PM except Zogg. The guy was a genius. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 28 Jul 07 - 09:36 PM This excerpt of John's really is fascinating: >>>>>>>>In the second, he was able to clarify -- and I think his clarification defines more American's views than the discussion as seems to be framed here. His response was that he realized in the first debate that what was really being asked was not, "do you believe in evolution?", but rather, "do you believe in God?". As he was not about to answer that he didn't believe in God, he chose to answer the implication of the question. All hell broke loose. He realized that he didn't answer accurately -- perhaps he was overly defensive. And so in the second debate he clarified that he didn't presume to know how creation had occurred, but that he did believe it was God-directed.<<<<<<<< I don't know if this guy McELroy is a nut. I know nothing about him. But he faced a similar dilemna: "Dr. McElroy. Do you think Texas public school teachers have all the facts right or are you some kind of goddammned Christian nut? Which is it?" The polarization here certainly does seem unnecessary and must look quite silly to anyone distanced from it. I keep waiting for it to just go away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Jul 07 - 10:22 PM Couple years ago they tore up Main Street to replace the 100 year old water lines. In doing so they found some boulders, well, lots of boulders really, some as big as cars. The boulders were worn smooth by water, and the geologists up at the University said they were rolled along when the Lake Bonneville Flood passed this way a few years back. No! According to the letters to the editor, these rocks were deposited by Noah's Flood and/or placed there by God to test our faith, just like all those dinosaur fossils they keep digging up. After all, the Earth was created just 6,600 years before the birth of Jesus Christ(in October, if I remember aright). Sure wish I was as sure of things as some folks are.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: MaineDog Date: 28 Jul 07 - 11:16 PM My first wife was an editor for a large textbook publisher, back in the 1960's. She told me then that Texas used the pi = 3 value in all math books until high school, when they had to fess up to make algebra and geometry work right. When I was in elementry school, we used "about 24/7" which worked out well enough when we were learning fractions. Now that we have calculators, of course, no one learns fractions any more. However, if you use an appropriate non-Euclidian geometry, 3.0... might be just right. Try calculating the area of circles drawn on the surface of a sphere! She also said that Texas had a committee of fundamentalists who passed judgement on all textbooks, and her company therefore had to publish a different set of books for Texas. MD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 29 Jul 07 - 12:48 AM Funny, Funny. I took two degrees at Texas University in the 1950s, including several math courses, and never, at any time, heard anyone mention pi= 3 being taught at any level. Here is a joke from "Texas Mathematics Teacher," Fall 2004, put out by the Texas Council of Teachers of Mathematics, est. 1953. "Do you know pi r squared, Grandpa?" "Nonsense! Pie are round and cornbread are square." The issue contains the article "Slices of Pi: Rounding Up Ideas for Celebrating Pi Day," pp. 6-7. http://www.tenet.edu/tctm/downloads/TMT_Fall_04.pdf Math teacher |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bev and Jerry Date: 29 Jul 07 - 12:59 AM "...Sure wish I was as sure of things as some folks are...." It's interesting that the only folks who are sure about things seem to be the fundamentalists of any religion. You rarely hear a scientist say that they are sure about anything. They always seem to qualify their statements with phrases like, "According to the laws of physics as we understand them" or "To the best of our current knowledge". That's why the creationists can criticize "the theory of evolution". Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Naemanson Date: 29 Jul 07 - 01:06 AM "Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric - PM Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:49 PM Well, that's not quite accurate. Many of the facts from the past were wrong because people were stupider then. But now we have the right facts, children." Do you mean less well educated? Well, some of them were educated as well as could be for the times. Do you mean less intelligent? I'd have to disagree. I doubt if there has been any significant change in mankind's intelligence in the last 10,000 years. All that has changed is the amount we know. And there are those who are resisting that change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 29 Jul 07 - 04:11 AM I do not believe heric expected to be taken entirely seriously on that point ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:08 AM No I didn't mean it seriously but remember when you were a kid wondering how people "then" could have believed x, y or z. such as in bleeding, or leeches as medically beneficial. Funyy thing (ha ha ) for me is now I get bled several times a year to treat high iron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:50 AM The point is that I agree with Bev, and Jerry too, that people with any scientific training beyond grade school fully understand the great number of mysteries to be addressed and the fragility of countless theories, while school teachers rarely convey to children such a nuanced world view. From my perspective that would be a much more productive course of action. When I was a biology student, I remember meeting an astronomy student. I said I picked biology because I believed that was the subject area that both needed and would gain the most advances in overturning old and creation of new thoeries over the next few decades. He said he chose astronomy for exactly the same reason. I was amazed. I didn't think there was THAT much more to be done. Now it turns out he was very right. So anti-Creationists get animated over attempts to criticize some or many subissues in Darwinian theory. They say it is a clever tactic to replace anything unanswered with a Creation non-answer based in dogma. Maybe so, some or most of the time, but yes it is a good and persuaive tactic to my mind. Kids should be encouraged to think things through, without fear that we may turn them into religionists. On a point relatd to textbook content: I clearly remember my fourth grade social studies book. On the inside coveers,it had a map of the world, with all socialist countries completely blacked out: Lost to civilization - a problem that was growing like a cancer. It was a most impressive map, which left an enduring impression on me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:53 AM "You rarely hear a scientist say that they are sure about anything." I wish I could just agree with you and let it drop. I don't entirely disagree with your assessment RE:religion and its "certainty/dogmatism". But I DO find the same dogmatism, maybe not in science, but among those who think they are "speaking science". You wanna find some of the angriest posts on the mudcat, search for all the countless threads like this one that touch on the evolution/creation issue and see if you don't agree that the dogma is from the "scientific" point of view... ...and, in those cases, nobody is suggesting, as you do, that "To the best of our current knowledge" caveot that you claim for them. They are right goddamn it -- and for a school to even SUGGEST that one cannot draw a conclusion from science regarding an intelligent origin (that one is not possible) is absolute HERESY. Applying what we currently know from science, I tend to conclude that the Earth is much older than the creation story with which I was raised. For that reason, I also tend to look at that Genesis account differently than I was once taught. I don't think it was written as a journalistic account of seven days. Interestingly, though, I DO find the Genesis account to be something other that simple "mythology". For one thing, it lacks the ancient on-the-back-of-a-turtle, flat-earth, how-the-bear-got-its-tail type of story telling of "mythology". It's WAY too matter-of-fact for that kind of interpretation. I don't conclude anything from the observation other than I think that the Genesis account is something "other" -- perhaps not to be taken literally as a journal of seven days, but certainly not as a purposely made-up story to pacify or mysitfy an intellectually dull people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:08 AM The Book "The Muse in the Machine" casts some light on the idea that our ancient precedessors were not less intelligent, but thought in a slightly different more emotional/poetic way than the modern 'dry intellectual' way. Well worth reading: it is by an AI researcher, who felt that attempts to duplicate human intelligence would permantly fail until emotion was taken into account - emotion and the human physical body being fundamental to human thought processes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:11 AM P.S. Rapaire: I LOVE those petrified watermelons from the Bonneville flood. You should market them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:26 AM Ancient people were not intellectually dull, they just did not have the information we have today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:40 AM What's turning out to be an interesting story, though, is the fact that we don't appear to have all the information that they had back then either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:49 AM As far as I can tell there isn't one person in this forum that doesn't think the creation story is a load on nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: TheSnail Date: 29 Jul 07 - 11:07 AM we don't appear to have all the information that they had back then either. How do you know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: artbrooks Date: 29 Jul 07 - 01:30 PM Its a matter of belief rather than rational analysis, Shakey. To many people, the Judeo-Christian story of god/God creating mankind by fiat (and, when he/He later realized that something was missing, creating woman by yanking a rib from the first man) makes about as much rational sense as the Hopi story of man coming to this world through a hole in the rocks. On the other hand, if one truly believes that he/He can do anything (and it's been a while since we had a she/She in charge, hasn't it?), than everything and anything is entirely possible and rational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: MaineDog Date: 29 Jul 07 - 01:47 PM I must correct my prior post. Pi was taught as "about 22/7", in some New York and New Jersey schools in the fifties. These days I use Pi = 4.0*atan(1.) , which some say gives the best possible reault for a particular computer or calculator. Also, if you read more of the Bible than Genesis, you will find passages that declare that God's time is not sensibly related to man's time, so we are not required to believe in 6 modern 24-hour days at all. MD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 29 Jul 07 - 03:01 PM Mr artbrooks I salute you. My statement above was left deliberately vague because there are many creation stories from across the world and most people only believe in one of them and thus disbelieve the rest. But why, what makes their particular story more convincing than any of the others? Fact is none have a shred of evidence. While science in general and darwinism in particular does not yet have all the answers more and more of the questions are being answered and the god of gaps is ruler of an ever diminishing domain. One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round. I'm grateful that religion has inspired man to great music and great buildings but the cost has also been great. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:23 PM I certainly don't think 'the creation story' is a load of nonsense - anymore than I think the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Divine Comedy, Hamlet, Paradise Lost, or Ulysses a load of nonsense ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:46 PM "While science in general and darwinism in particular does not yet have all the answers more and more of the questions are being answered and the god of gaps is ruler of an ever diminishing domain." Just so we're clear... that's as equally unscientific in its speculation as the creationism that you chide. Your concusion is drawn. You now seek affirmation, not knowledge. That's exactly what the creationists are chided for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:59 PM Big difference, John. Darwinism, in general, is accepted as the model which aligns and clarifies all known data to date, with the least complex or arbitrary explanation. If new data were found which controverted it--or part of it -- it would be carefully incorporated into a modified model IF it were confirmed data. Hell, even Piltdown Man got incorporated and it was bum data! Creationism, basically, has one data source and accepts no other. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 29 Jul 07 - 06:30 PM I don't agree, Amos. At the point at which I made my statement, Shakey says, basically, that he already believes in an evolution that occurs without an intelligent design or god. That implies the same unwillingness to accept any new data that disagrees with his pre-conclusion. It's inherent in his statement. He concludes that -- regardless of any new data -- people will conclude that man invented god and not the other way around. Lots of creationists (probaby the majority) believe also in evolution. The arguement here is somewhere else, and the line demarking victory in this tug'o'war is whether there was design or merely random chance. And on that one, neither side is any closer to being drawn over the line in defeat. And it is that kind of dogmatism that has led to stalemates such a Texas, where greater than 50% of the people who pay the taxes for public education, do NOT accept the same pre-conclusion that Shakey and his "science teaching" ilk demand. (science-teaching in quotes because, if the end is pre-concluded, it is not science). And, see, it was just upthread that GUEST:meself was asking if I really thought that people insisted upon teaching that science disproves the existence of a god. Shakey and you have answered for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:00 PM John: I have no trouble accepting this: "Lots of creationists (probaby the majority) believe also in evolution. The arguement here is somewhere else, and the line demarking victory in this tug'o'war is whether there was design or merely random chance. And on that one, neither side is any closer to being drawn over the line in defeat. And it is that kind of dogmatism that has led to stalemates such a Texas ... " But I don't think this does answer my question - which was, what science teachers are actually telling kids in the classroom - as opposed to what someone may say anonymously on an internet forum. And I'm not convinced that there are not a substantial number of science teachers who actually believe in a Supreme Being, whether or not they buy into anything remotely like the conventional creation story. I don't doubt that there are competing dogmatisms, but I just question whether it is the science teachers themselves that are so dogmatic on one side of the debate. Of course, as I say, you're much closer to the situation than I am. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:02 PM Fiddle, John. Science cannot disprove any such thing, because, as a hypothesis, it is not falsifiable. Furthermore it is the nature of science that ALL hypotheses are conditional until disproved in favor of a better one. Hell, the Newtonian formulation of gravity held sway for centuries and is only gradually being shifted by post-Einstinian exploration. This is a totally different approach to knowing from embracing a body of data based on its authoritative provenance -- the individual rather than the experiment. Scientists accept a theory like evolution (not "believe" in it) because it matches existing data. You may recall that for several centuries, the mystery of blood flow in the human body was explained by adhering to the lessons of old Galen, the founder of much of Western medicine. His model was tides, into which humours were injected by glands according for the personality. When Harvey presented his circulation model to the London academy several hundred years later, it caused a huge uproar, but the evidence was repeatable and verifiable, and the model was surrendered. You may find individuals who act reactionary or close-minded while still posing a scientists, but they don't represent the field very well. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:19 PM "Science cannot disprove any such thing, because, as a hypothesis, it is not falsifiable. Furthermore it is the nature of science that ALL hypotheses are conditional until disproved in favor of a better one. Hell, the Newtonian formulation of gravity held sway for centuries and is only gradually being shifted by post-Einstinian exploration. This is a totally different approach to knowing from embracing a body of data based on its authoritative provenance -- the individual rather than the experiment." I don't disagree, Amos. And I'm saying that that is not where the battle line is drawn. I'm saying that many people, evidenced in great number on this very forum do not accept the first line in your above paragraph. They accept that from their study of science, as they understand it, they are like Shakey and accept that science has taught them that, indeed, science has amply disproved the existence of a god. Again, I don't know any agnostic/atheists who did not arrive at their god-free conclusion via their understanding of science -- whether it is, indeed, science or not. You see the dogmatism and lack of scientific reason in the creationist. You don't see the same lack of scientific reason of those who think they are speaking "scientifically". I do see them and I do not accept their premise. And I don't accept their right to teach a god-free conclusion in classrooms for which I have paid equally. If they were right and I were wrong -- or, said a more accurate way -- if they had a greater case for a god-free universe than I do for a god-directed one, I would accept their right to teach their world view as such. I do not accept that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:53 PM John, THere is a world of difference between teaching a god-free world, which would be highly unscientific and presumptuous, and teaching without any reference to religion in matters of scientific data and hypotheses. If education is to be s state-sponsored activity, as it seems the Federal government wants it to be, then it, by constitutional necessity, must teach no preference toward any religion. A science teacher would be remiss to assert science had disproved the existence of Allah, or any other deity, without being extremely explicit about what research he was citing. I have never heard anyone claim science had disproved god. I wouldn't know how to frame such an experiment, since by definition the realm of natural phenomena does not (in the usual sense) include spiritual beings of any kind, let alone super-beings. There is simply no such proof anywhere within science or claimed by science and I would dearly love to see it if you have seen such an experiment or even such a claim. Unless your kids are going to a religious school, which would not be one that is paid for equally by all taxpayers, they should not find ANY indoctrination in their studies bearing on one religion or another, or their inverses, in a preferential way. Studying many religions across different cultures can be an eye-opening and educational experience in terms of understanding the human beast historically but that full-spectrum study is a different matter altogether. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:10 PM And you two aren't at each other's throat! My, the MC has fallen from the days of MG -- civil discourse, of all things! Rational defense of positions! Actual, honest-to-God, thought-out positions and arguments! Gracious, the next thing you know we'll be accepting formal debate! 8-) For whatever it's worth, my own opinion is that Church-related schools should be allowed to teach whatever form of science they wish (my own Catholic schooling, K-BA, found no conflict between the sciences and the Church's teachings). If a tax-supported school wishes to teach "Creationism" then it should teach ALL theories of it, from ALL religions -- not just the two creations contained in Genesis. That makes it a study of Comparative Religion, though, and not science. Mind you, I would have no problem with classes in Comparative Religions in the public schools.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: fumblefingers Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM We, and many other species, were depositied on this planet by creatures in a spacecraft as part of an experiment. The creators come back from time to time to see how things have progressed. That's my view of creationism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Fergie Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM If any person can put before this forum any verifible evidence that a god entity exists I will immediatly fall down on my knees and recant my atheistic beliefs. Fergus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 29 Jul 07 - 08:41 PM This thread caused me to search on the net for what the Catholic church now teaches about evolution and creation, as when I was in Catholic school in the 50's and 60's, there was no conflict between the two. It was interesting to see that there is an admonition against fundamentalism from the Vatican and that evolution is taught in science class in Catholic schools and the belief in God as creator is taught in religion class. quote "... the Vatican's former chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, prior to his retirement, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." A cardinal who is the President of the Pontifical Councils for Culture pointed out "the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism." The current pope does not endorse creationsim or intelligent design. I'm no longer a Catholic, but I'm glad to know they have not thrown out science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 29 Jul 07 - 09:08 PM Shucks, all them Christian Brothers who taught me chemistry, biology, physics, and various sorts of math in high school and the Franciscan monks who taught me plant morphology, zoology, botany, trigonometry, chemistry and stuff in college will all be pleased to know that they won't be declared heretics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 29 Jul 07 - 10:37 PM The way I heard it, the Roman Catholic Church, and notably the Jesuits, were accepting and well-versed in Copernican theory for half a century until the rise of Protestantism forced the Pope to take action to retain his dominion over the fundamental doctrines. Then it rather fell apart. On Galileo's head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Kent Davis Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:08 AM Guest, Shakey, at 3:01 p.m. stated, "As far as I can tell there isn't one person in this forum that doesn't think the creation story is a load on nonsense." I don't. I am confident that the account given in Genesis is accurate. I understand why some do not believe the Genesis account. They note, correctly of course, that there is much evidence which is compatible with the universe evolving over billions of years after a Big Bang. There is also much evidence which is compatible with creation of a stable, mature universe by an omnipotent God. I am not writing to convince anyone of my position. I don't suppose, in a few short paragraphs, that I can. I am writing to protest the hubris of those who think that everyone who disagrees with them on this matter is an "idiot" and "ignorant". As a hobby farmer and as a physician, I do have some knowledge of nature and some intelligence with which to interpret that evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:47 AM The problem, Kent, is that it is more usual to find someone declaiming against evolutionary theory who IS in fact ignorant, and whose love of sweeping generalizations, and various violation of logic, does make them look idiotic. The most common argument in support of creationism is doctrine, which is illogical in and of itself. I don't know anyone who thinks everyone who disagrees is an idiot or ignorant, but I do know a lot of people who use the general rule of "if it walks like a duck...". Speaking from ignorance, and speaking illogically, is sure to bring you such labels. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Donuel Date: 30 Jul 07 - 03:54 AM "Its too bad ignorance doesn't itch" Well it does in a way. Watch a liar closely and they will rub their nose when they are telling a lie. Stupidity may be genetic and those who ignore certain knowledge are ignorant but there is the awful truth and there are funny beliefs The tribal, cowardly, envious, hateful and greedy often choose the beliefs. Those who know the awful truth; become administrators, politicians and preachers for the Mega Evangelical Christ Church Association - MECCA or they become scientists, musicians and artists of words and pictures. But we all still need to be vigilent of envy, hate and greed in our lives. PS don't mess with Tesas, its already a mess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bonzo3legs Date: 30 Jul 07 - 04:25 AM Seems that maybe 2 villages somewhere in Texas are missing their idiots! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:27 AM "The problem, Kent, is that it is more usual to find someone declaiming against evolutionary theory who IS in fact ignorant, and whose love of sweeping generalizations, and various violation of logic, does make them look idiotic." I think that what Kent and I are trying to say it that this statement cuts both ways. It's just that those who think they "believe in science" are more unaware of their ignorance -- and tolerated for their more mainstream ignorance. In these discussions, I consistently find those who say they believe in evolution (meaning that they don't believe in creation) stating things that show that they haven't the foggiest notion of what evolution implies or where it leaves them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bonzo3legs Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:44 AM Or care!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,PMB Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:55 AM they haven't the foggiest notion of what evolution implies or where it leaves them. Well, what do you think it implies, and where does it leave us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Mr Happy Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:58 AM Check it out! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CEqlUJGCE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: TheSnail Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:05 AM John Hardly It's just that those who think they "believe in science" don't understand science any better than the creationists do. You don't "believe" science, you use it as long as it works. When it doesn't, you come up with a new theory that fits the facts better but it still isn't The Truth. As Amos said earlier - it is the nature of science that ALL hypotheses are conditional until disproved in favor of a better one. You can't do that with your God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,PMB Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:25 AM "Believe" in science? People believe in the scientific method, and in the idea that "truth" is an approximation. I suppose what we are really saying is that you can't have the absolute certainty that the religious mind seems to crave. Giving them their due, people of mature religious belief accept that uncertainty too, even about their religion. You are unfortunate in the USA in having as the mainstream faith one which is philosophically stuck in the 17th century. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: TheSnail Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:46 AM GUEST,PMB "Believe" in science? People believe in the scientific method OK, I was being inexcusably lax there. You can believe in the scientific method but you shouldn't "believe" a scientific theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bonzo3legs Date: 30 Jul 07 - 06:58 AM Perhaps they could design me a thru zero flanger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,PMB Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:06 AM I think we're getting to quibbles about what the word "believe" means. You can believe in scientific theories, and you do; to the extent that you are prepared to bet your life on it. Don't fly or go climbing if you don't believe in gravity. Which is a case in point. We have a perfectly functioning theory of gravity, which you can take at many levels, Newtonian or relativistic, as it is useful. But we really have little idea of the mechanism of gravity, and there are bound to be changes to existing theories when (if?) we manage to combine relativity with quantum mechanics. And when we do that, nothing is more certain that the new theory will raise a whole new set of questions. So in reality you never get to the truth, and you might question if the word "truth" actually means anything specific. But if the alternative is shutting down of the intellect, and refusing even to ask the questions, in my opinion it's better to learn to live with the uncertainty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:17 AM When something is in quotes, as was "believe in science", the quotes imply that the phrase is something other than a typical meaning. I don't blame you for not understanding the distinction I'm drawing. I'm not the greatest at conveying my thoughts. And it may be the first time you've ever heard anyone question that there may be a distinction between actual science, and what is referred to as the "scientific" side of the evolution/creation debate... ... a "science" that believes it has concluded no creation. A "science" that believes that adaptation and evolution are one and the same -- and don't understand that even the most hard-core creationist believes in adaptation too. A "science" that accepts, when it comes to the jumps necessary in evolution to go from, for instance, inanimate matter to living matter -- that "because it did" is a more definitive conclusion than "I don't know". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,PMB Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:39 AM John, in that sense evolution is as solidly established as the "theory" of gravity. About which, at the lowest level, we don't know either. As Newton put it, hypotheses non fingo. Some questions just have to be left until we have more information. Evolutionary biologists do not recognise a difference between adaptation and evolution. Indeed, "species" is nowadays seen as merely a convenient label for organisms that are more like each other (increasingly based on DNA content) than they are like other organisms. It is worth noting that groupings of species based on similariries of structure have been overwhelmingly confirmed by DNA analysis, and interesting and instructive when surprises have turned up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: TheSnail Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:50 AM GUEST,PMB I think we're getting to quibbles about what the word "believe" means. On the contrary, "belief" is the fundamental difference between religion and science. You can believe in scientific theories, and you do; to the extent that you are prepared to bet your life on it. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested against the observed facts and found to correspond to the limits of experimental accuracy. That doesn't make it true, just your best bet. Don't fly or go climbing if you don't believe in gravity. Gravity isn't a scientific theory, it is an observed physical phenomenon which we experience in our everyday lives (unless you are in the International Space Station). People climbed trees and apples fell out of them and the planets followed their orbits perfectly happily before Newton came along with his theory which merely describes what they do. Interestingly, it is the crew of the International Space Station who are staking their lives on the correctness of Newton's theory to do the calculations that allow the space shuttle to meet them at the right time and place. They don't need to worry that it isn't actually "true" because it is good enough for that purpose. In other areas, such as calculating the orbit of Mercury, it gives the wrong answer. You can bet your life on Newton's theory but you can't "believe" it because it isn't true. Relativity isn't "true" either; it's just a better fit to the observations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:05 AM The scientific method is a tool, not a belief system. Science, from the Latin "scire", to know, from Webster's, "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." Belief is opinion, supposition, conviction, creed or doctrine, without absolute proof, from the Old English "belyfan", from ga-laubjan to hold dear or love. The root of the meaning of "belief" shows us that without proof, people hold on to an idea they hold dear or love. This attachment to the belief without proof shows us how science has nothing to do with the belief. Creationists feel some need to try to prove their belief now with pseudoscience, but in the past, people just acknowledged it as faith without proof. Rather than try to re-define science or faith, they should acknowledge that each has their own place. Science in science class... belief in religion class. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: TheSnail Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:25 AM Alice The scientific method is a tool, not a belief system. OK. I'll go along with that. Science, from the Latin "scire", to know, But.... "Some people think that science is about knowing but they are wrong. Science is about not knowing. Knowing, we leave to religion." Dr. Jack Cohen (reproductive biologist) (May not be an exact quote. It's a long time since I heard him say it but that was the gist.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:32 AM Again, yup. I get it. And what I'm saying (again) is that there is a certain irony to a statement like: "One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round." The writer is convinced of the "scientific" nature of what he "knows" to be true -- all the while merely stating what he philosophically believes. We all "get it" -- we understand that the creationist come from a philosophical "belief" system (though an interesting discussion for another day is the curious fact that the juggernaut of the academic world is effectively blockading anyone who comes from a creationist point of view from participation in their world). What we seem to not grasp is that there is an "other" entrant in the debate. It is not the creationist (whom we understand as philosopher), it is not the scientist (whom we understand does not have a horse in the origins race) -- it is the "believer" -- the new disciple of Dawkins, if you will, who has extrapolated (very UNSCIENTIFICALLY) an end conclusion -- that creation could not have happened... ...and who, at their most extreme end is already talking about the extermination of the ignorant religious as "dangerous" (even though they, too, are merely "believers", as you put it). I too am a disciple of Dawkins. Darryl Dawkins. Chocolate Thunder. And I want to invite everyone to join me on the planet "Lovetron". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:33 AM and I also score number 100!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:48 AM Just for the record, John, there is a lot more to the evolutionary theory discussion on the subject of inanimate to animate matter than "because it did". The Blind Watchmaker is one excellent text that explores this area and examples that indicate the lieklihood of it occurring. THat said, in all fairness, I think there IS a bias toward non-spiritual interpretations of existence itself by scientissts, just as there is a bias toward obeying CYrillic road signs in Russia -- it's a natural byproduct of the symbol system they are bred with. There have been many threads here on the Cat about this dichotomy between pure materialism versus matter + spirit in various combinations. One of the reasons the subject seems to be so thorny and hard to cut through might be that the material framework is the one area where solid agreements, as made manifest in experience, rule. Spiritual spheres of activity tend to be highly subjective, with wild variables among different groups' perceptions. Sure, there are commonalities, but they are difficult to frame and communicate compared to the solid certainty of "32 feet per second squared" and Boyle's law. It is possible, someday, that the scientific method will be able to test and codify the boundary region between spirit and matter, but it is not going to be soon, because the momentum of material agreement is hard to steer in any new direction, like an aircraft carrier trying to make a turn at sea. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,Albert Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:53 AM Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity. Albert Einstein US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:59 AM Nice post, Amos. and I would only add that... "It is possible, someday, that the scientific method will be able to test and codify the boundary region between spirit and matter, but it is not going to be soon, because the momentum of material agreement is hard to steer in any new direction, like an aircraft carrier trying to make a turn at sea." ...is so because of the very presuppositional approach that I have already referred to as "science" above. Right now the juggernaut of academia has accepted that there is no "spirit" and they will do their darndest within their power to make sure that any new data cannot be interpreted in any manner that calls their presupposition into question. We naively accept that there is a hard and fast line drawn between philosophy and science -- probably because we understand the nature of what science (scientific method) is supposed to "do", and we give "science" the benefit of the doubt that we would not if we were more aware of its philosophical underpinnings. There is not a hard and fast line drawn between philosophy and science -- the two are being used in this discussion. ...and you must feel so bad about coming in at number 101. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:01 AM the above is supposed to read: "... as the two are being used in this discussion." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,PMB Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:07 AM No, but surprising though it may seem, it is actually being worked on. The work of Susan Blackmore on memes and consciousness is only one example. Some will probably think it demeaning even to think about the human spirit in this way, but EVERYTHING is fair game in science. In the end, the facts must speak for themselves. Maybe, if you find too close an examination of love disturbing, you'll agree that an examination of hate might help us to control it. Alice, much as I agree with what you say about belief, you can't use etymology to derive the meaning of a word. The concept of "science" has moved a long way since the word was coined. In fact, it is a meme that has evolved.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:12 AM I HATE memes. When I see 'em at a fair I run the other way. Especially when they do that stupid "walking-against-the-wind" or "trapped-in-a-box" thing. And isn't whiteface just a little, you know, racist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Jeri Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:18 AM One questions you have to ask if you want schools to teach creationism is, WHICH creation story? The Judeo-Christian one is going to be some people's answer, but then you have an official state religion, which is, as far as I know, still unconstitutional. Another question is, who would you get to teach it? You can't discriminate based on religious beliefs, so you could have an atheist teaching kids about God It could be a Pagan or Witch or Buddhist or... you get the picture. When you take religious teaching out of the hands of the religious organizations, I fear it might end up with a whole new spin based on the lack of belief of those who teach it. My bottom line here is, if you can explain it to someone from the planet Ggryufis who understands English and has been briefed how not to get arrested or beat up. If you can show what evidence you have and explain your best theory based on that evidence, and it makes sense to the alien, you've got science. I don't think this would work with any religious beliefs. Especially not if our alien explorer knows for a FACT that his own personal gods created the universe, and Earth happened because Hork (May His Name Be Praised) forgot to clean out his cosmic refrigerator a couple of Ggryufisian weeks ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:21 AM "Turtles all the way down" has not yet been mentioned in this thread, but as I see it, belief is belief and science is science and maybe never the twain shall meet, and that is OK. Hopefully, facts will inform people's belief and belief systems will become less destructive (less violence, less repression, less terrorism). After finishing a lecture on the orbits of galaxies and planets, a scientist was challenged by a lady in the audience who affirmed that the earth is a flat plate on the back of a giant turtle. "What is the turtle standing on?" he asked. "Very clever young man, but it is turtles all the way down." This story has been quoted in different ways, sometimes using the Indian idea of the earth on a tiger on an elephant on turtles, and even used by Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time. People who have faith in a belief will believe it in spite of anything science says about that belief. I am fascinated with the way people believe what they believe. In relating the turtle story to intelligent design, the "turtle question" is, "where did the designer come from? Who designed the designer, or is it designers all the way down?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:28 AM okay Alice, what turtle does a guy who says, "One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round." believe in? He thinks he believes in science, but science, as you say, wouldn't make a claim to a "truth" that it did not have evidence for. No turtles there. So, again, what turtles go all the way down for this... "One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round." ...guy? Never the twain shall meet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:31 AM Jeri, I don't personally want either creation or religion taught in public schools. All I personally ask for is that science teachers not take it upon themselves to answer that they have, in fact, unlocked the secrets of the universe and have found no god. ...not even in Ggryufis. (I was in Ggryufis one night. They serve a Mningly that is simply to die for!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:31 AM "what turtle does a guy.." Your question isn't clear, John. What are you trying to ask? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:33 AM I don't think any good science teacher would tell students there is no God. A good science teacher tells students that science is not faith and faith is not science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:34 AM ALice: One answer, of course, is that we are all Designers, suffering our way through various grades of a self-generated Design School...but the "must have a prior Cause" argument is really irrelevant if you are talking about an entity (or many entities) who are not contained by spacetime in their basic nature. The unidirectional character of time in a matter-and-space continuum (as we know them so far) is not inherently necessary for other dimensions or kinds of existence. This is a hard idea to swallow, to a mind deeply trained in ordinary space-time logic. But I think it proves out in experience, if not in Science. :>) ALl of which just speaks to what I said earlier about the problems of approaching questions of thought and spirit using scientific method. Memetics not withstanding. The question that gets left unanswered is who does the memetic engineering, and what happens when the boundary between signal and understanding is crossed -- a qualitative gap rather than a merely quantitative one. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Donuel Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:36 AM I don't know what gravity is in its entirety but I suspect that its force is spread through out 11 dimensions thereby making it less powerful than the electrodynamic and strong and weak nuclear forces that are evidenced in our familiar 4 dimensions and includes a anti gravitational component related to what we currently call dark energy and dark matter. I suspect that gravity may even be able to leak from one brane in a multi universe system into another. At least the evangelical explaination of gravity has more certainty and elegant simplicity: 'Gravity is whatever God wants it to be' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:38 AM "Your question isn't clear, John. What are you trying to ask?" I'm beating a dead horse. Comments keeps being made that creationist inhabit the "faith" domain. And I'm trying to point out to you that that guy who said... "One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round." ...thinks he is on the side of "science". But clearly, since he is making an assertion that he cannot know by way of science, he is a man of faith. And so I'm asking you who claim that "never the twain shall meet", what is his faith in? What turtle does he think goes all the way down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Donuel Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:44 AM The buddist creation story of one water lily of existence/consciousness closing only to have another opening elsewhere in time has a multiverse quality to it. The biblical version of creation seems to have been grossly cropped and poorly translated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:47 AM The way I see it, when people construct a human idea of a creator, whether it is a designer manipulating the planets or some other human idea, then the creator is some thing or some one who is a human concept. If one sees it as beyond a human definition, then we have the Taoist saying, Those who know do not say, those who say do not know. Or to put it another way, God or Creator is beyond the scope of human idea or language, so to speak about it is mere babbling about what humans cannot define in words. Whether one describes a creator as designer manipulating the universe or something else, that is a human concept, not something so vastly beyond human idea that the Taoists realize once one becomes aware, they stop trying to define it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:52 AM "The biblical version of creation seems to have been grossly cropped and poorly translated." Hmmm. I'm not sure how one would arrive at that conclusion. Cropped of what? As I said earlier, the one thing I find compelling about the Biblical creation story is that it lacks any of that telling-of-a-strange-tale -- any of the how-the-bear-lost-its-tale stuff that would smack of mythology. Instead, the Bible account is pretty matter-of-fact. It lacks thunder and lightning as show, just as it lacks slight-of-hand. It doesn't really even claim to be exhaustive -- merely narrative -- "this happened, and then that happened". Again, it lacks a storytelling flare that would, if present, to my mind, make it more Uncle Remus, and less God-the-Father. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM "tail", not "tale" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM Perhaps there is a substantive difference between extrapolating based on past trends and probabilities, and asserting based on faith. The imaginary guy you posit, John, is not speaking for science, but to forward a belief he has. The creation of life in a laboratory would prove that it could be done but it doesn't prove anything about what is "all the way down". He is trying to inject a buried premise (in your imaginary assertion) in his argument, but it does not stand up to analysis. It's reasonable, based on accelerating developments since the 1950's, that the transition from non-life to primitive life will be made to happen in a lab at some point. That's just an extrapolation of trends. The meaning thereof will be an entriely different question. And even that event will be light years short of self-aware life capable of intentionalilty. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Alice Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:55 AM I think it is definitely telling of a strange tale mythology.... perfect garden, special fruit, talking snake... what more could you ask for in a myth? And, by the way, not the only version of that myth in the middle east. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:58 AM "imaginary guy" read up-page, Amos. I'm not imagining. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:07 PM This Google Search will give you fascinating information about the 3.0 pi controversy. I have to say that most of the time, I use 3.0 for pi in estimating the circumference of a circle. Does this make me a horrible fundamentalist - or could it be I'm just a lazy mathematician? As for the controversy about how the earth was created, I have one question: Who really cares? I would venture to say that most high schould students think that creationism and evolution are exactly the same: boring. And I'll betcha they think their parents are pretty silly for arguing about it, since the really important things in life are music and the opposite sex. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: TheSnail Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:12 PM John Hardly quotes Shakey "One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round." ...thinks he is on the side of "science". I agree. Shakey seems to be one of those who "believes in science" and as such needs to think it through a little more. That is not a scientific statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:28 PM SOrry, John. My goof. But what I said of your 'imaginary" guy is perfectly applicable to Monsieur Shakey, methinks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: artbrooks Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:45 PM The person who (hypothetically, I assume) says "one day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round" appears to me to be a believer in a subset of atheism. Atheism, of course, is just as much dogma as creationism. The absolute belief that there is no such thing as god/God is as unprovable as the absolute belief that god/God created the universe {through whatever process your particular religion prefers}. To say that one cannot prove by empirical evidence that there is a god/God doesn't mean that this lack of proof proves there isn't a god/God. Likewise, saying that one doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian creation stories (as I recall, there are three in the Bible) doesn't preclude a belief that, for example, at some time or another, someone or something gave the cosmos a little nudge and then went off to enjoy a beer-equivalent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:59 PM Ho hum. I have my beliefs, to Hell with yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 03:58 PM there's a beer equivalent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Rapparee Date: 30 Jul 07 - 04:16 PM Yes, but Budweiser is a false god. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Bonzo3legs Date: 30 Jul 07 - 04:32 PM and god might be a lady as indeed might allah, and you know what rubbish ladies speak from time to time!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Shakey Date: 30 Jul 07 - 05:20 PM Allow me to quote myself, poor form I know, but everyone else has One day life will be created in a lab and more people will realise that man created god not the other way round Amos has dealt with the probibility of it happening, I would just point out the word more; I didn't say the world would turn on it's head now did i. All in all I still find it a reasonable statement. As for people above talking about proof for creationism, where is it? You have a book, written by men a long time ago, one of many books, just what makes this one special. John Hardly, if you had been born in India you would probably be a Hindu, in Pakistan - a muslim. Face facts you are a christian by accident of birth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:17 PM Creationists - What is the one hypothetical piece of evidence that would make you disavow your belief in the biblical creation story as fact? If you can't state one, you have just proven the difference between creationism and science, because anyone doing science could list you a dozen or more hypothetical observations that would cause them to abandon (or seriously revise) any given theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Jeri Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:26 PM John, thanks for the clarification, and I agree. Making predictions about what will likely happen in the future is a matter of belief. I find it amazing how people will twist things others have said so they can engage in the old, familiar argument they'd rather be having. I thought it was meant to be the old 'creationism versus science' thing again, but I was wrong. It will still probably go that way. (That's a belief, but I'll be able to prove I was right after it happens.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:41 PM "Creationists - What is the one hypothetical piece of evidence that would make you disavow your belief in the biblical creation story as fact? If you can't state one, you have just proven the difference between creationism and science, because anyone doing science could list you a dozen or more hypothetical observations that would cause them to abandon (or seriously revise) any given theory." You might be surprised to know that I know many creationists who would agree entirely with your premise. In fact, I was just streaming an interesting theology program that was chiding the fallacy rampant in what he called "evangelicalism" to willingly accept the notion that there was no fact that they could run up against that would change their belief in God. It was his contention that faith can not be absent reason. He further said that there were any number of facts that, if he became convinced of their truth, would utterly and completely change his beliefs. I agreed. Oh, and my birth wasn't an accident. That was my younger brother. My folks intended to stop at me. I try to remind my brother whenever I can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Jul 07 - 07:48 PM QUOTE "Some people think that science is about knowing but they are wrong. Science is about not knowing. Knowing, we leave to religion." UNQUOTE Science is about asking the right questions. Once the right questions have been asked, then we have a chance to find acceptable answers. Religion already has the right answers, no matter what the questions are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Jul 07 - 08:25 PM Ah, yes, but then there is the spiritual search. It primarily involves questions...and the seeking of answers...and further questions... The questions never end. It's a lifelong process, just as scientific inquiry is. It relies upon continuing observation, reason, and analysis. It does not rely upon doctrine. It may consult any number of existing doctrines (as does science) as aids in determining pursuing this or that line of inquiry, but it is not bound BY them or limited TO them. I'm not sure any of that has much to do with Texas lawmakers. I think their main business, whether or not they believe in evolution or creationism, is the laying down of doctrine. ;-) "Listen up! Yew shall do it the way we says to, or yew shall face the danged consequences...in court." By the way, what if someone's idea OF creationism were that it involved (and presently involves) the very processes we call "evolution"? Seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. Why must the two be mutually incompatible? ;-) The assumption that they are is highly questionable...to an inquiring mind...but not to one that already thinks it knows. A mind that already thinks it knows is like a solid rock. You can bounce any number of things off it, but they WILL not penetrate. This controversy, if it is one, is going on between 2 diametrically opposed sets of such minds, in my opinion. I'd hate to be the ping pong ball forced to bounce between them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Fergie Date: 30 Jul 07 - 10:02 PM Little Hawk, the natural world and the supernatural world are mutually exclusive. Science deals with the natural world. Religion deals with the supernatural. When we deal with the supernatural world, observation, reason and analysis are ineffectual and inappropriate tools for they cannot penetrate through the wall or make sense of the metaphysical world of mythology, doctrine or belief in a god figure. Likewise when we deal with the natural world, theology, prayer and sacrifice are ineffectual and inappropriate tools for they cannot provide useful insights into the physical world. Scientists have, after many centuries of struggle, designed a methodology and some very powerful tools that has lead them to understand and discover new and verifible knowledge about the natural physical world. Theologians, priests and metaphysicians have after many millenia of struggle, failed to design any methodology or tool that can lead them to new understanding or knowledge of the supernatural and metaphysical world. In Ireland the introduction of the science of electricity has banished forever, the once powerful and strongly held superstitious belief in the mythology of the fairies. Will some unforseen scientific advance be responsible for the end of the mythology of the god in the sky, or can the priests and theologians discover some methodology or tool that can give some insight or deeper understanding into the metaphysical world? I know where I'd put my money Fergus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:09 PM Nice post John hardly...respect. Sounds a lot like this guy: "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996) WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life. 1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections. He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22). 2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation. 3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions. In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points. For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243). 4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought. Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology. 5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. 6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. 7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae." It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God. I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: frogprince Date: 30 Jul 07 - 11:59 PM Good Brother John, Maker of Lovely Pottery, I read a lot of what you write, and wish that I could match your depth and clarity of thinking. But at times I still feel that you're conditioned by your beliefs to miss some very obvious things. I know that you are way beyond the Creation Museum and 6000 year old earth nonsense. But, if I remember right, you've defended the "factual" basis of Genesis by refering to the order of the creation, as I've heard numerous people do over the years. Day is when the sun is "up". Night is when the moon is "up". Genesis states that the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day. So far as I can see, Genesis reflects (1) the assertion by several authors of their faith in God as the creator, and (2) the fact that they were men of their time, totally ignorant of the literal history of the creative process. Oh, by the way, Little Hawk: I hope you don't think "By the way, what if someone's idea OF creationism were that it involved (and presently involves) the very processes we call "evolution"? " Is an original thought. A whole lot of people have held that idea, for a long time, from C.S.Lewis to various high school science teachers I know (who don't preach religion in science class). Dean |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:47 AM Of course it's not an original thought, Frogprince. ;-) And that gives me great comfort. Indeed, any number of flexible thinkers have had that thought. It comes naturally to an imaginative mind, wouldn't you say? Fergie, I do not for a moment buy your analogy that "the natural world and the supernatural world are mutually exclusive". It depends on what you think is supernatural. And that varies wildly from one person to another. My opinion is...NOTHING is supernatural. It can't be. If it was, it wouldn't exist. But...there are many things that people may interpret as being supernatural, simply because they have no idea of how to explain them. That means they don't understand them yet, that's all. I am not defending the Christian religion. I am saying that this particular debate always gets dumbed down to a pointless fight between 2 sets of straw men that 2 sets of pigheaded people set up to throws stones at because they have no respect for one another and no inclination to look beyond their knee-jerk assumptions about life. They are both armoured by their arrogance and their certainty that they are right, dead right, and the other is wrong, dead wrong. They take joy in knowing that. They resemble each other so closely in their attitude that they could be twins. I am not in sympathy with either one of those camps. I'm not defending traditional religion. I'm not defending materialistic reductionism...a younger tradition, and an equally vain one. I find them both totally inadequate to deal with reality. There is nothing supernatural. There can't be. There is much, however, that we have yet to explain. That doesn't mean we will not someday find the correct explanation...and when we do, science will support it. And then, I suppose you will too. ;-) Won't you? It will have become part of the acceptable orthodoxy. It will no longer be a heresy that simply cannot be tolerated in the company of one's rational peers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:00 AM I dunno, Dean. I'm not sure I'd try to defend a literal reading of Genesis 1. I guess that what I'd say is that there are things about the order of creation as spelled out there that I find interesting -- not the least of which you've touched on -- that if there is any literal meaning to be taken from the order of things, that God created light before he created the sun (and stars), it sure would be interesting to know what that light was supposed to have been. It sure seems all the heck out of order -- especially if one needs a few million years between the days. But I have to say that, though I don't tend to believe in a literal six day creation, I wouldn't be surprised if some day I find out that it was so -- and how it occurred. My sense of logic is not at all comforted by giving a creator millions of years to accomplish the universe. On the one hand, it may have taken that long -- but on the other hand, I don't find creation/the universe any more possible a task just because more time is allowed. Improbable is improbable. Time doesn't help. Ask me to build a computer from scratch (no manuals, no materials) and I couldn't do it. Give me a million years and I still couldn't do it. Time wouldn't help. If the universe occurred over eons of time because it occurred over eons of time, then fine. But the notion that the time made it more possible is of little logical comfort -- for cration or for evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:02 AM creation, not cration. cration is the verb form of what happens when a meteor hits the earth. I causes a crater. Cration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:03 AM "It" causes a crater, not "I causes a crater". I have never caused a crater. That I know of. Typo-fest over. Maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Jeri Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:23 AM Here's a Youtubosity with Chris Smither's 'Origin of Species'. I got the song on a label sampler when I bought another from them, and I LOVED it. John, don't you mean 'crateration'. 'Cration' is the primary element that makes up 'ticky tacky' which is what little boxes are mostly made of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: artbrooks Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:27 AM Don't sell yourself short, John. Somebody said "man created god/God" or something like that. OK, logically speaking, if man created god/God, and god/God created the meteor, and the meteor created the crater, than man created the crater. It therefore logically follows that you could have caused the crater. Of course, logic and mythology/theology often have little to do with each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:57 AM I'm not sure that a six-day creation is any more difficult to comprehend than an all-of-a-sudden Big Bang ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Celtaddict Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:58 AM I am delighted to find people here talking about deep and meaningful matters without resorting to name-calling and invective! My father's (he was a rocket scientist and a church leader) rather more concise version of part of what John Hardly, Little Hawk, the Pope, and some others have said: "The wonder of creation could be a God that could set up a system of natural law in which all of these miraculous events can occur naturally." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: John Hardly Date: 31 Jul 07 - 11:09 AM Thanks for the Chris Smither tip, Jeri. I love Chris Smither's music. There are artists whose work I enjoy. There are artists I am amused by. And there are artists that I admire so much that I own everything they've ever recorded. With Chris Smither it's different for me. I go through long stretches when he's all I put on the player. He's got what we used to call "soul". And he's got a singular way with a song. He can move me from laughter to tears more often and more profoundly than anyone I can think of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: frogprince Date: 31 Jul 07 - 03:16 PM Well, it's a scientific fact that anyone who like Chris Smithers that well can't be all bad...: ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 31 Jul 07 - 03:51 PM "When we deal with the supernatural world, observation, reason and analysis are ineffectual and inappropriate tools for they cannot penetrate through the wall or make sense of the metaphysical world of mythology, doctrine or belief in a god figure. . . . Theologians, priests and metaphysicians have after many millenia of struggle, failed to design any methodology or tool that can lead them to new understanding or knowledge of the supernatural and metaphysical world." Take this a step further if you will, and consider whether your thoughts / consciousness is part of the natural or supernatural world. (Natural, right?) Even with the most modern tools showing increased levels of electrochemical activity in certain regions of the brain associated with different matters such as emotions, the truth, as I see it, is that there has been no zero nada scientific progress in explaining the "mind" and its essence. The physics of electrochemistry doesn't do it. So the best case scenario for your position is that the scientists and the theologians, priest and metaphysicians are on an equal footing. Tie score. "Mind is like no other property of physical systems. It is not just that we don't know the mechanisms that give rise to it. We have difficulty seeing how any mechanism can give rise to it." – Eric Harth, Ph.D., Syracuse University (1986). (Apparently he is now looking at quantum theory without any progress.) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319393.700-quantum-states-of-mind-most-biologists-believe-the-answerto-what-make-us-consciuos-lies-buried-in-brain-cells-and-their-chemistryjohn-mccrone-talks-to-the-mavericks-who-prefer-to-look-for-clues-in-quantumphysics-.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jul 07 - 03:57 PM Chris Smither is great. I'd listen to him anytime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,meself Date: 31 Jul 07 - 04:00 PM What happened to that long and thoughtful post in which someone refuted my somewhat flippant previous post? Can we take its disappearance as evidence of some Greater Force? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Wesley S Date: 31 Jul 07 - 04:04 PM Chris Smither is a lot like Richard Thompson for me. I keep trying to like him. I know I'm supposed to like him. Everyone { people I respect } says he's amazing. And I keep waiting to be amazed. It hasn't happened yet. That doesn't mean he isn't great. I'll keep my mind open in the meantime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Fergie Date: 31 Jul 07 - 08:01 PM Heric, when you say the mind, do you mean the brain? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Riginslinger Date: 31 Jul 07 - 11:25 PM "The End of Science in Texas..." Does this mean they forgot the Alamo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: heric Date: 01 Aug 07 - 02:09 AM No, I mean the original thoughts inside your head. The ones we have been trained to fit into a scientific framework, or soemthing akin to it, so that they can be "ordered." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: GUEST,Keinstein Date: 01 Aug 07 - 06:54 AM Hey, don't tell Azizi, but it seems that Black smokers might have been responsible for the origin of life on Earth... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Cluin Date: 10 Aug 07 - 09:44 PM This new Creationist Museum shows an exhibit of the "time when adam and Eve walked in the Garden and dinosaurs were their friends". Amazingly, the video claims only about 25% of Americans believe in evolution over creationism. Really? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: frogprince Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:31 PM Possibly, just possibly, if you add up everyone in the U.S. who consider themselves to be creationists or believers in intelligent design (including the many theistic evolutionists who would not impose their beliefs on the science curriculum) you might get up to that 75%. So far as "creationism" as portrayed in that pseudo-museum, I'm sure it would be a small minority. Minds that could convince themselves that that stance is viable might very well also convince themselves that 75% of the populace is on their side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The End of Science in Texas... From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 07 - 12:04 AM Recommended reading: The Quantum SelfHere's a summary review.. The argument is made that a set of entangled quantum states give rise o a notional unity, which provides the field of thought known as Self. There's a great deal more to it, and it is articulately reasoned and thoughtful. A |
